Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Why does the trace show up while computing unpolarized cross sections?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="JD_PM, post: 6349168, member: 655284"] [B]TL;DR Summary:[/B] I want to understand why the trace shows up while dealing with unpolarized cross sections. I've been studying different scattering processes (from Mandl & Shaw QFT's book, chapter 8) and there's always a common step I do not understand: the showing-up of the trace. Let me give two specific examples.[LIST] [*]Lepton Pair Production ##( e^+ (\vec p_1, r_1) + e^- (\vec p_2, r_2) \rightarrow l^+ (\vec p_1', s_1)+l^- (\vec p_2', s_2))## [/LIST]Here the unpolarized cross section is given by $$X = \frac{e^4}{4\Big[(p_1+p_2)^2\Big]^2} A_{(l) \alpha \beta} B_{(e)}^{\alpha \beta} \ \ \ \ (1)$$ Here both ##A_{(l) \alpha \beta}## and ##B_{(e)}^{\alpha \beta}## end up yielding traces; let's show ##A_{(l) \alpha \beta}## explicitly as an example. $$A_{(l) \alpha \beta}=\sum_{s_1} \sum_{s_2} \Big[ \bar u_{s_2} (\vec p_2') \gamma_{\alpha} v_{s_1} (\vec p_1'))(\bar v_{s_1}(\vec p_1')\gamma_{\beta} u_{s_2} (\vec p_2'))\Big]_{(l)}=Tr\Big[\frac{\not{\!p_2'}-m_l}{2m_l} \gamma_{\alpha} \frac{\not{\!p_1'}-m_l}{2m_l}\gamma_{\beta}\Big] \ \ \ \ (2)$$[LIST] [*]Bhabha scattering (##e^+ (\vec p_1, r_1)+e^- (\vec p_2, r_2) \rightarrow e^+ (\vec p_1', s_1) + e^+ (\vec p_2', s_2)##) [/LIST]Let's take only a term of the total unpolarized cross section for the Bhabha scattering as an example $$X_{ab} = \frac{-e^4}{4(p_1-p_1')^2(p_1+p_2)^2} \sum_{spins} \Big[ (\bar u (\vec p_2') \gamma_{\alpha} u (\vec p_2))(\bar u (\vec p_2)\gamma_{\beta} v (\vec p_1))(\bar v (\vec p_1) \gamma^{\alpha} v (\vec p_1'))(\bar v (\vec p_1')\gamma^{\beta} u (\vec p_2')\Big]=\frac{-e^4}{4(p_1-p_1')^2(p_1+p_2)^2} Tr\Big[\frac{\not{\!p_2'}+m}{2m} \gamma_{\alpha}\frac{\not{\!p_2'}+m}{2m} \gamma_{\beta}\frac{\not{\!p_1}-m}{2m} \gamma^{\alpha}\frac{\not{\!p_1'}-m}{2m} \gamma^{\beta}\Big] \ \ \ \ (3)$$Thus all boils down to understand why $$X= \frac 1 2 \Lambda_{\delta \alpha}^+ (\mathbf p') \Gamma _{\alpha \beta} \Lambda_{\beta \gamma}^+ (\mathbf p) \tilde \Gamma _{\gamma \delta}=\frac 1 2 Tr \Big[\Lambda^+ (\mathbf p') \Gamma \Lambda^+ (\mathbf p) \tilde \Gamma \Big] \ \ \ \ (4)$$Where the positive energy projection operator satisfies the following equation$$\Lambda_{\alpha \beta}^+ (\mathbf p) = \Big( \frac{ \not{\!p}+m}{2m} \Big)_{\alpha \beta} = \sum_{r=1}^2 u_{r \alpha} (\mathbf p) \bar u_{r \beta} (\mathbf p) \ \ \ \ (5)$$ But I do not see how to show that Eq. 5 is the reason why the trace shows up in Eq. 2, Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 Any help is appreciated. Thank you [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Why does the trace show up while computing unpolarized cross sections?
Back
Top